Giving an ADMIN a neg varrot asking for citations isn't really a good idea.

Be prepared to be fucked with the rest of your life here.

Originally Posted by Sifu Rudy Abel

"Just what makes a pure grappler think he can survive with an experienced striker. Especially if that striker isn't following any particular rule set and is well aware of what the grapplers strategies are".

A good guy would have posted his question. He got me in a bad mood, too bad.

Originally Posted by Sifu Rudy Abel

"Just what makes a pure grappler think he can survive with an experienced striker. Especially if that striker isn't following any particular rule set and is well aware of what the grapplers strategies are".

"This is why we are here. Because the Martial Arts for too long have been cloaked in an unnecessary level of secrecy bordering on mysticism, and its in these shadows that the cockroaches love to hide. -Phrost"

"Just what makes a pure grappler think he can survive with an experienced striker. Especially if that striker isn't following any particular rule set and is well aware of what the grapplers strategies are".

"Goal #1: Ignore previous shitty post." referred to this one (the post directly before mine). I bear a grudge against people who try to conflate sporting ethics with biochemistry, and my remark about IGF-1 was more than just being contrary for the sake of being contrary (or as you put it, being a dick) - it was an attempt to keep things from going down that road. (Which succeeded, although not in the manner I'd expected.)

I also think it's a fair comment in its own right. I was thinking of the following when I made it:

Testosterone does not have as potent an effect on muscle as IGF-1, and mostly behaves in a stimulatory manner for other more potent anabolic hormones. Increasing in response to bouts of exercise testosterone further stimulates the pituitary gland to produce more GH. It also stimulates the hepatic and extra-hepatic production of IGF.

Now, that's from a five-year-old literature review, so it's not beyond dispute. And that leads into another issue...

You know, your advice that I not be a dick is solid. And your suggestion that I research PCT and bloodwork for myself is fine too. As a matter of fact, I did - before receiving said suggestion.

This post (briefly) lays out my hypothesis for mid-cycle (that is, before PCT) gynecomastia.
After making that post, I decided to look into things further. I hit up Wikipedia, which led me to this article - which may or may not be credible, but it's got a decent reference list for further reading.

What I found interesting about the latter is the broadening from what I'd typically think of as PCT (kick-starting endogenous testosterone production) to things like using aromatase inhibitors and chemicals that bind to estrogen receptors.

Now, perhaps this is naive of me, but I'd be inclined to think that if you want to slow down the testosterone-estrogen shunt, the most opportune time to do so would be while testosterone levels are elevated - during the cycle, not after it, when said shunt should be effectively inactive. And at this point, "post-cycle therapy" becomes a misnomer.

It has also been documented that various physiological factors affect said shunt - one example would be obesity. This is enough to persuade me that BudoMonkey's statement that you took exception to, in the context of his follow-up:

Originally Posted by BudoMonkey

I have also talked to a bunch of guys (probably 10-15%) who swear by the fact that they used a PCT properly, either novaldex or some over the counter stuff, and because of the way their bodies processed it or whatever it just didn't have any effect.

... may have some merit. And this is why I asked for evidence to support your counterclaim:

Originally Posted by Pandinha

Proper PCT's and watching estrogen levels will negate any type of gyno.

Post-cycle therapy - unless, as previously noted, it's a misnomer - won't take effect until... post-cycle.Watching estrogen levels during a cycle will not have any effect without acting on what you see.
And remember that different people respond differently to chemical interventions. So what if, for a variety of feasible reasons, the estrogen levels imply that the appropriate action to avoid gyno is to end the cycle early? You could argue that that would technically "negate" gyno, but it would also "negate" the anabolism that is the point of taking steroids.

Maybe you've taken all of this into account when you made your claim. If you have, it'd be mutually beneficial for you to document your research on the subject - your diligence is highlighted, and everyone else has the opportunity to benefit from your efforts.